Supreme Court
Friends with Benefits
Pundits have remarked that Donald J. Trump is one of the very few presidents without a family dog in the White House. That’s not completely true. He has nine.
The framers of the Constitution created three branches of government—the administrative, the legislative, and the judicial. These branches were supposed to check and balance each other. The whole idea and underlying intent of the document was to create a system of self-government by an interested, informed, and active citizenry. An influential Philadelphia woman named Elizabeth Willing Powell famously asked Benjamin Franklin “Well, Doctor. Do we have a monarchy or a republic?” His reply haunts us in 2024, “A republic---if you can keep it.”
One weakness in the Constitution was its lack of detail regarding the judiciary. It did not delineate the exact powers and prerogatives of a Supreme Court, nor the organization of the judicial branch as a whole. John Marshall served as Chief Justice from 1801 to 1835. He gave the Court its power of judicial review of the acts of Congress by naming itself the “supreme expositor of the Constitution (Marbury v. Madison)[21][22] and making several important constitutional rulings that gave shape and substance to the balance of power between the federal government and states, notably Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, McCulloch v. Maryland, and Gibbons v. Ogden.[23][24][25][26]” Also during Marshall's tenure, although beyond the court's control, the impeachment and acquittal of Justice Samuel Chase from 1804 to 1805 helped cement the principle of judicial independence.[29][30]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Donald J. Trump is a crass, crude, and generally contemptable showman who is expected to be inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States 22 days hence. His admiration of tyrants is well documented. He has promised to be a dictator on the infamous Day One of his second term in high office—the day on which he turns Project 2025 loose upon the land.
If he had a better understanding of forms of government and the wit to express his desires more clearly, he would advise his MAGA faithful that he favors, and busily is converting our historical form of government into, a constitutional monarchy. Why not an absolute monarchy? Because, whatever else he is or does, the man desires respect, regard, and power. He is smart enough to know that some modicum of restraint will serve him well in office and in history.
Thanks to Mitch McConnell we have a judiciary stacked in favor of Mr. Trump’s objectives and actions. Giving proper credit where due, we recognize the Roberts Court has returned powers and privileges to the office of President that George Washington voluntarily surrendered.
Donald J. Trump, private citizen, has filed a request with the Supreme Court, asking it to delay a 19 Jan 25 deadline for the TikTok app to be sold to a new owner or face a ban in the US. The sale is required by an act of Congress entitled the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA). Biden signed it into law on 24 Apr 24 as part of a $95 billion military aid package to Ukraine and Israel. The act “would ban social networking services within 270 to 360 days if they are determined by the President of the United States and relevant provisions to be a "foreign adversary controlled application"; the definition covers websites and application software, including mobile apps. The act explicitly applies to ByteDance Ltd. and its subsidiaries—including TikTok—without the need for additional determination. It ceases to be applicable if the foreign adversary controlled application is divested and no longer considered to be controlled by a foreign adversary of the United States.[b]
Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act - Wikipedia
The high court is set to hear arguments on the issue on 10 Jan 25. Mr. Trump is expected to be inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States on 20 Jan 25.
Steven Portnoy of ABC News reported on 12/27/24 that John Sauer, Trump’s nominee for solicitor General, filed an amicus brief asking the court to grant a stay delaying the deadline so that the incoming president can work out a "negotiated resolution" that would save the app.
The filing casts Trump as someone who "alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the Government." The filing asks the court to pause the sale deadline so that Trump’s incoming administration can “pursue a negotiated resolution that could prevent a nationwide shutdown of TikTok, thus preserving the First Amendment rights of tens of millions of Americans, while also addressing the government's national security concerns." The brief points to Trump’s creation of his own social media platform, with an estimated 14.7 million followers, as the basis for allowing “him to evaluate TikTok’s importance as a unique medium for freedom of expression, including core political speech.” Outside the formal pleadings, Donald Trump has used his Truth Social platform to claim victories due to his transactional approach to international relationships.
TikTok has over 170 million US users. It is owned by ByteDance, which is based in China. An article in China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law insists that all of its organizations and citizens shall “support, assist and cooperate with national intelligence efforts.” In 2021, TikTok was found guilty of invasions of user privacy, as well as transfer of collected data to a foreign adversary, and was penalized $92 million for damage done.
TikTok complains In TikTok, Inc. v Garland that PAFACA violates the Freedom of Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the Bill of Attainder Clause of Article One, Section Nine, and the Due Process Clause and Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.[36][37][38] This is a kinda fun legal position for a foreign adversary to take. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok_v._Garland TikTok asked for a pause in the deadline for divestiture.
On 16 Dec 24, Donald Trump accepted a meeting at Mar-a-Lago with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew. “On December 18, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the First Amendment claims for the case and scheduled oral arguments for January 10.[12] It was consolidated for consideration with Firebaugh v. Garland, a lawsuit filed by TikTok content creators against the law.[13][14]” It is possible that a journalist filing a Freedom of Information Act request might establish some connection between the Mar-a-Lago meeting and the Supreme Court decision to hear TikTok’s complaint. The narrow scope upon which the Court will allow argument is reminescent of the guidelines it set for consideration of Trump’s plea for immunity from the fact and consequences of his part in the insurrection of 06 Jan 21. The decision again may be forecast for the careful reader.
Right now, unless the Supreme Court reverses rulings made by the lower courts, which include rejection of TikTok’s request for an emergency pause in the deadline by the D.C. Circuit appeals court (“The petitioners have not identified any case in which a court, after rejecting a constitutional challenge to an Act of Congress, has enjoined the Act from going into effect while review is sought in the Supreme Court”), TikTok’s fate is in the hands of President Joe Biden, who has the authority to grant the one-time only 90-day extension of the 19 Jan. sales deadline. There is no evidence that ByteDance has sought or accomplished the degree of divestiture needed to trigger an extension. Or that the Chinese government would approve such a sale. China can use its ability to restrict technology exports to defeat a sale of key aspects of TikTok’s unique algorithm to a US company.
Trump is asking the Court to jump past present law, lower court rulings regarding it, and the prerogatives of the current administration to give him a turn at bat.
Golly, I wonder what the Court will decide.
Sit. Stay. Good puppy.
Thank you for bringing forth the facts and tying this story together. I'm having a Jimmy Kimmel moment with people who voted in the last election—you know, where he goes to the street and sees who can answer a question we think everyone might know? If we ask the next 10 people on the street, "How many justices are on the U.S. Supreme Court?" I wonder how many would get the correct answer? If we dare to push the envelope further and ask "How many rights are in the Bill of Rights?" I'm betting the outcome of the recent election that most would not know. At the same time, I'm sure they will bitch and scream if any of those 10 rights are taken away from them.